What is the right model for Right Brain Bio?

Several investment professionals told me they were not willing to invest in Right Brain Bio because we are a one-product company. That's true; we are developing only RB-190 to conquer Parkinson's. That makes us a "binary risk" - which means we either work or fail. That is also true - there are only two possible outcomes for RB-190, which means only two possible outcomes for Right Brain Bio.

If you look around you'll see news of biotechs securing large investments - $40 million, $50 million or even $100 million. These companies typically have great products (note the plural form) or a platform that enables the development of multiple products. And it makes sense that these types of investments are preferred - they have more than one chance to succeed. But often they are chasing a disease target also being chased by many other companies or represent an incremental approach, which means they will capture only a fraction of the total market. I'm sorry this sounds so capitalistic when it should come across as more empathetic but we need to be realistic that this kind of thinking is what drives the decision making for those with the deep pockets we need to invest.

There is another problem with these platform and multiple product companies. Typically they have more people working for them with higher monthly costs (called the burn rate). So what happens if the first product fails? The company will typically go after additional funding to develop their other products and at times, develop new products. This cycle can repeat, which means that the initial investment is followed by additional investments, because if not, the initial investment loses value. Time goes on... more money is required... and more money is required... and more... That means to be a "successful" investment the return needs to be even higher (this has to do with both the amount invested and the time over which the investor must wait for their pay out).

Our pitch to investors is that while the investment in Right Brain Bio has "binary risk" - it also will pay out sooner and without round after round of investment money required. We'll know that our path is the right based on data from our first trial (Phase 2A) as soon as one year following completing our first fund raise. And with one more round, we'll complete the second trial (Phase 2B) that will show (hopefully) that we've picked the right drug in the right dose in the right people - which means we will see that the drug works. At that point we'd be ripe for takeover by a company that would pay for the final (Phase 3) trial and move RB-190 to the market.

So the return on investment is a very strong and comes quickly relative to typical biotech investments. However, we've not been able to raise the money we need, so perhaps it is worth evaluating our approach.

Reconsider our approach?

In the 1970s, the Palo Alto Research Center launched with a novel approach. The scientists, engineers, designers and visionaries began to create a new world. They invented laser printers, WYSIWYG word processors, graphical user interfaces for computers, ethernet networks and the mouse - amongst other things. They may have been the most prolific platform for developing new products (tech rather than biotech), including serving as the developer/inventor of the Apple and later Windows desktops we've all lived with since the 1980s.

Should we shift to this type of platform, where we churn out new ways to treat diseases? Our process that identified how to conquer Parkinson's with RB-190 could be applied to other diseases. If we did that, we'd become a potential funding target for a wide range of venture funds. Realistically, it is far more complicated, as the process of identifying the disease targets, studying the complete knowledge base for each and then highlighting gaps and/or contradictions in those knowledge bases is a Herculean task. It's why groups exemplified by Every Cure developed and are now refining AI models to perform these tasks at scale.

But even if we identified a way to build a platform around our process that is not as big or powerful as Every Cure, should we shift from our Parkinson's?

This is not a new question for us - and the answer is the same each time this topic is considered. We will not change our model. We have a unique - perhaps once in a lifetime opportunity - to conquer a horrible disease for which there is no treatment that can stop or reverse it.

The plan

We're going to stick with our plan. Every day we'll move the process forward. Every day we'll look at the science to be sure we are not overlooking important data and/or insights. Every day we'll pursue ideas, people and groups that could help us raise money. Every day we'll spend time reconsidering what we've done and how we've done it to identify opportunities to do better. Every day we'll look for partnerships and allies. And every day we'll stay focused on conquering Parkinson's disease.